Beyond Partisanship: A Proposal to Bring Our Divided Family Together Again

At a recent scholarly gathering, one participant concluded it is likely the current divisions in the Unification movement will continue indefinitely. In this article, I propose a four-pronged approach to end the polarization between the disparate groups and bring them together to fulfill the highest aspirations of Divine Principle.

I do not intend to criticize any individual, institution or leadership, but want to present a conceptual framework upon which we can overcome the historical challenge of denominational/religious division we face.

First, I discuss how reinterpreting “True Family theology” changes the rules for who can be involved in putting an end to the conflict.

I identify how the conflicting groups can shift from position-taking to problem-solving and move beyond sterile debate to engage in genuine dialogue.

I suggest a third, alternative narrative to move us beyond the limiting narratives we’ve been told thus far by the conflicting groups.

Finally, I recast the conflict in terms of a need to heal broken relationships and strengthen bonds of love between family members.

The three groups involved in the conflict (Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, Family Peace Association and Sanctuary Church) employ a variety of tactics to defend their positions, such as: assuming their group is always right; giving no possibility the other parties have parts of the answer to end the conflict; always trying to prove the other party wrong; listening to find flaws and refute arguments; defending “our own version of the truth;” seeing only one side of the argument; looking for weaknesses in the other’s position; creating a winner/loser mentality; and, seeking a conclusion that supports one’s own position.

This kind of position-taking and conflict is found is all types of organizations. For example, in the politics of the recent presidential election, it was all about painting a picture of “the other” candidate/party as being deficient, wrong, untrustworthy, dishonest, and unqualified to lead. There is no advantage for the opposing party to “toot the horn” in praise of the other, or to show how their opponent’s solutions have as much merit as their own. To do so runs the risk of losing votes, and as a consequence, losing power and control that come with winning the election.

Taking a close look at the division in our movement, it is not a stretch to conclude it has more to do with the desire for power and control by one group over the other to implement its version of “what is best and right” for everyone else. By themselves, the leaders of each group appear incapable of coming together in a spirit of discovering new options and solutions, other than their own original alternatives. This is bad enough, but another thorny reality to deal with is how True Family theology impedes any progress toward ending the conflict.

In 1993, as part of a worldwide speaking tour, Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon travelled to 44 countries and delivered the speech, “True Parents and the Completed Testament Age.” Here’s an excerpt referring to Divine Principle teaching on the True Family:

“Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great privilege to announce to you the establishment of the first True Family. My husband and I, together with our 13 children and 20 grandchildren are absolutely dedicated to serving God and humanity. With three generations in one family, we have achieved, on the family level, the central root, the central trunk, and the central bud of the “Tree of Life” mentioned in the Bible. It is our sincere hope that you will symbolically graft into this lineage by joining us in our efforts to create an ideal nation and world. This marks the beginning of the Completed Testament Age.”

Hyun Jin Moon and Hyung Jin Moon claim (for different reasons) Family Federation members must submit to their authority because of their blood ties to True Parents. This view is connected to the idea conveyed in Mrs. Moon’s speech, whereby she likens the physical children of True Parents to “the central trunk” of the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Both sons give specific reasons for creating organizations not affiliated with Family Federation, and level serious charges against Family Federation leaders.

In the midst of the conflict, Family Federation members are encouraged to “stay the course” and remain faithful to carry out Mother Moon’s instructions in fulfilling “tribal messiahship.” The general membership has no idea if any of the charges by the two brothers have merit, or if the three groups are communicating in an effort to resolve their differences.

Acknowledging the three groups haven’t been able to come up with a solution to the conflict is important in considering how to end it. Armed with this awareness, we can constructively start mapping out a plan of action to end the division. The first step is to address the need to reinterpret True Family theology.

Rather than implying True Parent’s sons (and daughters) have the final say on movement issues that transcend “the family level” which Mother Moon referenced, we can say the following: “Reverend and Mrs. Moon emerged in the latter half of the 20th century to reveal how God’s love is most profoundly experienced through familial relationships of husband and wife and parents and children.”

Using this approach removes the special inferred status laid claim to by Hyun Jin and Hyung Jin Moon, and allows everyone to consider movement-wide issues on more equal footing. This reformulation of True Family theology makes it possible for the two sons and Family Federation members to “sit down at the table” and enter into authentic dialogue. That’s step number one.

The next task is to articulate a strategy to “move beyond position-taking to problem-solving.” In other words, coming together because of our differences, not despite them, and seeking solutions as a unified body to solve real problems in society.

Aakif Ahmad, co-founder and CEO of the Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, believes in better ways to bring about change than each of us pushing our own agenda at the expense of “the other.” His organization follows four practices as an antidote to gridlock: 1) building on an agreed upon framework; 2) promoting trust and understanding; 3) ensuring diverse participation; and, 4) creating a safe space for dialogue. According to Ahmad, no one person or perspective has all the answers, and stronger and better solutions emerge when we cultivate more communication and cooperation among those who disagree. Organizations like Mediators Foundation,Bridge Alliance, and American Public Square bring together conflicting groups on a regular basis and effectively solve real societal problems “for the greater good” (as Unificationists often like to happily proclaim).

It is clear people with opposing views and perspectives can join together and accomplish something greater than their own individual solutions — for the greater good. Shifting from hyper-partisan position-taking stances to a solutions-based attitude is a key to “coming together in a spirit of unity.” As long as the parties involved try to resolve the conflict with a win/lose, right vs. wrong, us vs. them mentality, the separations will continue to play out with little chance of reaching a positive outcome.

It is imperative we allow individuals the freedom to be different, to advocate for one’s own special cause with passion, and to take firm stands with fierce commitment and resolve. Such is the heart of the democratic process. But, if position-taking and loyalty to one’s vision means holding fast to a pro or con stance with no chance of any change, such noble qualities can lead to exaggerated distortions, such as: always arguing to prove “we are right;” demanding power and control because “we know what is best for everyone;” insisting on “just listen to me and you’ll have to agree with my position,” and “we are on the right side so just come join the winning team.”

Anticipating representatives of the three groups to act as impartial judges in the conflict is like expecting referees in the Super Bowl who own stock in one of the competing teams to be neutral observers! Future efforts to bring representatives of the three groups together for productive dialogue (not debate!), must include highly skilled “impartial referees” to ensure agreed-upon rules for dialogue and civility are followed by all parties at the table. Dialogue among disparate groups must be led through the heart, first, and not just with our heads.

Are the differences between the Family Federation, Family Peace Association and Sanctuary Church impossible to resolve? Are we being told “the rest of the story” about what is at the heart of the conflict? Seasoned Unificationists, tempered by decades of spiritual training and practice, know only too well individuals who make decisions acting alone for themselves, or collectively as institutions, are likely affected by personal motives, greed, politics, sheer jealously, and a desire for power. To deny this reality is tantamount to denying our human condition. That is why “We the People” do not accept the limiting stories we’ve been told thus far about the conflict:

Narrative 1: Family Federation leaders and affiliated organizations are always on God’s side, so members must pledge undying loyalty to Mother Moon and not get involved in the conflict, because there is nothing blessed families or tribal messiahs can directly contribute to bring about a different outcome.

Narrative 2: The two brothers tried for several years to educate Mother Moon about what they allege was rampant and willful corruption of some Family Federation leaders and affiliated organizations, but their efforts fell on deaf ears. It is now incumbent on all Family Federation members to come under the authority of either Hyun Jin or Hyung Jin Moon, because only their solutions can divert us from inevitable ruin and fiery judgment by God.

With respect for aspects of these two perspectives, I strongly disagree. Neither of these narratives will bring our divided family back together. Instead, these two narratives will only continue to weaken and divide our worldwide family, by insisting we take sides and pitting individuals, families, and faith communities against one another. Fortunately, “We the People” have the power to create a third alternative narrative to the conflict.

Building trust and making intimate connections before taking on key issues is important. If anything, this conflict demonstrates the need to heal broken relationships and strengthen bonds of love. As long as individuals try to get their way via name calling, demonizing, telling half-truths, blaming, acting like the victim, or taking the moral high ground, it’s not possible to come together “in a spirit of unity.”

Until we are able to see past the incomplete and inaccurate stories we tell ourselves about “the other,” we can’t fully embrace those with differing views and ideas. Focusing on healing broken relationships and strengthening bonds of love between one another is the best strategy to take going forward. This approach pulls the magic carpet out from underneath those who claim the conflict is all about ideology, theology, worldviews, corrupted individuals and organizations, recalcitrant sons and daughters, failed leaders, etc.

Narrative 3: Healing broken relationships: We need to recast the separations between Family Federation, Family Peace Association and Sanctuary Church as first and foremost a struggle to heal broken relationships and strengthen bonds of love between family members. It is here the most important work needs to be undertaken to bring our divided family back together, and we are all involved, not just the leaders of the three groups.

Hilde Wiemann, founder of Hilltop Retreat and Generational Healing, a certified Family and Relationship Coach, encourages parents and children to come together to safely uncover their pent up wounds and emotions. By doing so, according to Hilde, they can experience a wonderful bonding and reattachment, learn new family life skills for communication and loving support, and totally transform their family lifestyle. In the current conflict among the three groups, it is easy to see the need for such work to be encouraged and embraced. Furthermore, all blessed families and tribal messiahs can embrace such work to ensure our families and local faith communities are healthy and strong.

It’s time to let representatives in the three groups know “We the People,” schooled through decades of spiritual warfare and practice with True Parents, “will not be fooled again.” We can no longer settle for half-truths and incomplete stories, driven by decades of unresolved emotional pain and anger between parents, children, brothers and sisters, and co-workers. We know in our own hearts we need one another and we love one another.

It’s time for members of the Family Federation to acknowledge any merits to the charges leveled by the two brothers, and let its volunteer base know everything possible will be done to make sure the highest levels of integrity and honor will be embedded in its institutional practices (and what’s wrong with that?). It is time for the two brothers to accept the reformulation of True Family theology as suggested here, and to begin the important work of learning how to mend broken relationships and strengthen bonds of love in their tribe.

I see what I call “a new breed of Unification leader” emerging in America and other parts of the world. They are largely in their thirties and forties, and for the most part are far removed from the heavy baggage associated with the “wilderness period” of the first generation of Unification adherents. Some are highly skilled in the area of ministry and conflict resolution. We need more of them to emerge. I believe they are the ones who can effectively act as impartial referees in this conflict. Seasoned Unificationists who are interested to do so can work as advisors and mentors to prepare this new breed of leaders to help our movement transition into its next level of spiritual practice and lifestyle.

We will do well to not expect quick fixes and to avoid knee jerk, simplistic black and white thinking when considering “what must be done” to move forward in a healthy and productive way. It took a long time to get us to where we are today. It will take time to manifest a different reality than what we are facing today.

Reformulation of True Family theology, shifting from position-taking to a solutions-based mindset, cultivating an alternative narrative to the conflict, and healing broken relations is the formula to apply in bringing our divided family back together again — for the greater good. The seeds are there to be cultivated. Let’s help water the seeds with our wisdom and discernment, so strong, healthy, and beautiful minds and hearts can lead us forward as we continue working together to “build the kingdom.”♦

Jack LaValley spent 20 years as part of a personal protection team for Rev. and Mrs. Moon and their family. He is the founder of true4ever and author of the book, Seven Secrets to Finding True Love. He received his M.S. Ed from the University of Bridgeport. Jack and his wife, Wha ja, are the proud parents of three grown children.

Editor’s note: Responsible comments to this article are welcome. However, please review our commenting policy at the bottom of every page, and note that “The AU Blog posts a comment at its sole discretion, may edit for length, content or clarity, and reserves the right to limit the number of comments posted by an individual in a period of time. Ad hominem attacks on the persons or motivations of other writers are not acceptable.”

14 thoughts on “Beyond Partisanship: A Proposal to Bring Our Divided Family Together Again”

Thank you, Jack. For me, this is the best-written summarized solution to overcoming the division in our movement, I have come across so far.

At the same time, I am not too hopeful the divisions will soon be resolved and healed. Too strong are the entitlement and “we-are-right” mentalities on all sides. They have been cultivated over decades and won’t change suddenly.

I also agree that the broken and dysfunctional family relationships are at the root of what we see the movement has become today. But will any of the parties submit to family counseling? I doubt it. They have cemented their respective positions and viewpoints over the past years and will find it almost impossible to do what would appear to them like a retreat or defeat.

It will take some major “interference” or sign from Heaven to change the current situation.

Of course there are always improvements to be made in terms of developing communication skills but the UC and the subsequent FF’s were and are not humanist institutions, nor were they ever dependent on institutes for policy resolution. The central point was God and although its an old fashioned word, monism was presumed to be general modus operandus. Everything came from God and everything could be reduced to God and within that framework going back to the One was amongst other things a conflict resolution model rather than holding to some humanistic proposal like the UN.

I can remember Father telling us on graduation from UTS to serve the church and then go and do what we knew we should. He said at that time God knew that too; meaning we were to follow the interior God who supplied identity, meaning and conscience to guide us on our way. Indeed following anything for too long only leads to a failure of the self, identity crises and of course various forms of fragmentation, be it within the psyche or in fractures appearing in organizations. I wonder where we “house” the God of the self when chasing “proposals,” politics, human institutions and academics separated from the ground of existence? I used to think God in all His and Her manifestations was the glue and the powerhouse for authentic creativity and loving communion be it family friends or social. Why not try that idea?

Thank you, Mr. LaValley, for this article. I truly appreciate it and completely agree with it.

It is not easy to change human behavior from “follow the leader” to “be responsible for what you do, think and say”. “Follow the leader” mentality excuses ourselves from any mistakes made. “It is not my fault, I did what I was told” is a very dangerous statement, but it is there and practiced nonetheless by too many people in our world.

We have been given the tools to learn how to become the kind of human beings that “will get along” even with the most extreme opposites. But these tools are too often theorized and not practiced.

I have been a Unificationist for a very long time now, and often have been disappointed with the attitude of my brothers and sisters, most wonderful and hard-working, who seem to forget that our most important responsibility in this time in history is to apply the principles that we have been taught every single day and at every moment. That is not an easy thing to even learn how to do this, but it is necessary.

What you propose is very good and will create a very positive outcome and I so wish that it would be done. To be willing to sit at the same table, be civilized, and talk will require each person to take responsibility for who they truly are, and that is going to take time.

Thank you, Jack. Your argument to refocus discussions on problem-solving instead of theology is relevant and important. All three groups claim a special anointment to continue the mission of Father Moon and to represent his legacy.

I have come to my own conclusion, which others may agree with or disregard. I care fundamentally about what people are doing with their anointment. What are they actually doing? I think it is also important to go to and see what programs they are supporting. I live about an hour away from the SC in Pennsylvania and have visited there on a few occasions and know quite a few people involved there. I also attended the Global Peace Festival in the Philippines recently, and of course know of the many FFWPU activities. Maybe I will comment on some of the programs in each, as I understand them that I see value in.

Certainly improving relationships is always a positive thing as is an attitude of problem-solving. For the Moon/True family, I think only they can resolve their issues. For relationships between folks in various camps or in between somehow, I have a few thoughts.

First, we do not have to choose a side. We can be independent and support or be involved in programs as we choose.

Second, I tend to see this time as a period of division and my attitude is that everyone has something to learn. Focus on what and how God is leading you.

Third, organizations learn only by sharing what has worked and what has not. This is the problem-solving approach Jack brings forth, but it can be applied to the programs we support and find affinity with.

Fourth, only give your time, talent and treasure to programs and people you know and trust; they have to earn that from their actions.

Fifth, nobody owns birth, marriage or death. The rituals surrounding these should be acknowledged by all parties. I think all groups should be outwardly focused in their witnessing, not trying to convince an ever-narrowing and declining population. The Christian generation is aging and dying, if you have noticed.

Sixth, with your own work and ministry, this could take a long time to work out.

Seventh, God is the only real answer, and so let His will unfold in its own time. We may not understand what God is up to at the time of division.

Honestly, the more give and take we have with the schisms the more energy wasted in completing our own mission in life and that is perfection. They will wither on the vine in time, and one of their children will come back to True Parents. If we don’t perfect here, we have to do it from there. Have you picked a person most like yourself whom you can return to and help influence to change? You see how difficult that is? That is why I state, “Clean up your own mess. Perfect your heart by giving up your selfish ways. And stop worrying about things out of your control. Focus on yourself and tribal messiahship.”

Believe me, they don’t care about you. That is clear. They only care about themselves.

How I wish I could share your optimism, Jack. But it takes two to tango, and if the other is not at all open to modifying their view, then dialogue is pretty fruitless and simply drains energy and resources that could be better directed. I see it similar to dialogue with Christians who firmly believe that Jesus came to die on the cross. It leads nowhere.

I attended the CESNUR conference in Antwerp and a local debate. Did anyone change their views? No. It is very disheartening that the “Absolute Truth” of the DP and God which could unite all ideologies is now itself being re-written and re-interpreted. Will God prevail and lead us all to the same place in the end? I really wish I could see this as more than a “coping strategy.”

Great article and commentary. I agree it’s all very disheartening and seems almost hopeless. In God’s history, people often need to be brought to painful, suffering circumstances before they cry out in repentance and long for unity. Nevertheless, we must continue to call for unity, and thank you, Jack, for doing so. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

Before I joined the Unification Movement, I was a convinced Catholic. Why did I join then? Because Moonies were nice loving people? It might have played a role in the very beginning but it was not sufficient even just to join. I had to accept the truth which was quite different from what I believed before. And if it was not for the truth, I would have left very soon based on the behavior of members and even leaders. So I first clung to the truth. I had the chance to meet True Father quite a few times in my life. And I learned to trust him. And True Father always brought new aspects of the truth and enemies of our movement brought very negative things about True Father. Therefore if I hadn’t had enough faith in True Parents, I could have also left like quite a few members did.

I had to face wrong behavior of leaders long before the movement was divided, but I always tried not to develop any resentment, being aware that I also do not behave always properly. So the point is not the leadership but truth and True Parents. True Parents are under the direct dominion of God (True Father’s words). This is not yet the case for True Children. Also, the theology of Sanctuary Church is not in accordance with Divine Principle. FPA makes no special theological claim, but the decision concerning the change of position for Hyun Jin Moon was made by True Father himself. Even if it was influenced by bad reports from leadership (I am not convinced of it), Hyun Jin Nim had to accept the decision of True Father. (I have a personal experience of this kind of situation and through accepting it, I could finally receive unexpected blessings)

From 2012, we are in an age similar to the divided kingdom and the solution will not be on a horizontal level but by connecting vertically to God and the only way is through True Parents.

Thank you Didier, I agree with you. If the restoration of humanity was easy it would have been done already. We are the most complex creation God ever made and it is going to take much hard work for each of us to understand who we are and how to behave as a whole in unity with each other and the rest of the creation. But, one thing that will truly help is not just preaching the DP but understanding them and applying them in our daily life, and that is hard.

Hi Jack. I appreciate your intellectual honesty, courage, and insight to see the conflicts from a new perspective.

I agree that it is the responsibility of Unificationists (who claim to unite religious divides in the world) to keep seeking a way to realize “unity” (whatever it means) or reconciliation. In the process of such a quest, I think we will discover more fundamental issues to be resolved. As you did, finding a different way to look at the issue is, I think, critical. It is a challenge but, at the same time, an opportunity to explore/test the central thesis of Unificationism. It requires courage and honesty to do so. In this sense, I appreciate your contribution.

As brother Didier mentioned: True Parents are under the direct dominion of God (True Father’s words).

Here I would like to elaborate: According to the DP, being under the direct dominion of God means total unity with God — and thus there can be no fall, no separation from God. Furthermore, when the only begotten son of God (original Adam) and the only begotten daughter of God (original Eve) become True Parents in oneness with God, that couple move together and with God in perpetual motion. There can be no separation.

Therefore, if I were to doubt True Mother, it would mean, that I would doubt True Father, too, and vice versa. So, I conclude that if I would doubt either True Mother or True Father, then I would have NOT understood the core of DP and the value of True Parents — and obviously, I would not be seeing True Parents from God’s viewpoint.

In order to be able to see from God’s viewpoint I need foremost purity of heart. It is only I myself who can cultivate my heart and purify it. How deeply I would understand True Parents’ or other people’s explanation of the Truth would depend on the level of purity my heart had reached.

Thus, the vertical orientation towards God through prayer, reflection, DP study and HDH, comes long before any horizontal exchange or discussions.
Let’s go back to the basics.

Search the AU Blog

Search

Commenting

To post a comment on an article, at the bottom of a page, click inside the box under where it says “Please leave a comment or reply.” Type your comment, full name, email, and website (if any). Then, click “Post Comment” or “Post a Reply.”

Comments should not be article-length. If you want to post a longer comment, you are encouraged to submit an article to the AU Blog for consideration (see our guidelines here). We welcome a diversity of points-of-view.

No anonymous comments. Please use your full, real name, not a handle or pseudonym.

Unlike on Facebook or an email list, all comments are moderated, and there is a delay in posting. Please write in a polite tone specifically regarding the article in question; self-promotional comments are discouraged. Commenting on this site is a privilege, not a right.

Applied Unificationism is a place where the future of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU) may be thoughtfully discussed, but is not a site for criticism of its leadership.

The AU Blog posts a comment at its sole discretion, may edit for length, content and germaneness, or clarity, and reserves the right to limit the number of comments posted by an individual in a period of time. Ad hominem attacks on the persons or motivations of other writers, commenters, this Blog, or its sponsor are not acceptable.

This site will not tolerate the denigration, direct or indirect, of other faiths, races, minorities, and cultures. A bullying or disparaging tone directed toward AU Blog readers in a comment is not permitted.

You may contact an author directly by clicking his/her name in their byline.

Readers may rate comments using a five-star system.

Re-blogging

A brief excerpt of AU Blog content may be quoted as long as a link is provided to the source page and authorship properly attributed. Please use Facebook’s sharing feature rather than post articles in full on Facebook. Posting of a PDF of an AU Blog article on another site must also include full attribution, including the source as “Applied Unificationism” and the article’s posting date.